Maybe I don't know what you mean by "ability to score well". I thought that was exactly what should be measured to set par.

Oversimplification: Imagine a course of all par-3s. On one, the average score on each hole (for the skill level involved) is 2.8. On another, it's 3.2. Each hole might have par set correctly, yet a 54 on the first course is much worse than a 54 on the second.

Oversimplification: Imagine a course of all par-3s. On one, the average score on each hole (for the skill level involved) is 2.8. On another, it's 3.2. Each hole might have par set correctly, yet a 54 on the first course is much worse than a 54 on the second.

That's one way. Not very likely, but as an exercise: Even if all the holes have the same average, they would likely have some variation in scoring distribution across holes. So, by using mode (or some other percentile less than 50) instead of average to set par, the first course would likely have some par 2s and the second course some par 4s. The total par might come out to be 48 for the first and 56 for the second. It wouldn't be exactly as difficult to get under par on both courses, but it would be closer to equal than what would happen with the pars mostly seen today, or even if scoring average par were the standard. (Especially if 2s aren't used).

I figured the original comment was prompted by the expectation that some courses would offer more birdie opportunities. Which would be true if par were set to scoring average. But with percentile par both courses would have pars (almost always) lower than those averages. With par set at the lowest score that a significant percent of expert players achieve, there would be far fewer birdie opportunities, so for all courses there would be a narrower gap between par and the best anyone could be expected to play. Therefore, it would be more nearly equally difficult (across courses) to score under par.

As for scoring worse than par, percentile par would allow the two courses with the same par to have more unequal opportunities to get over par scores. That's OK, I'll take the trade-off of less-accurate comparisons of worse players for more-accurate comparisons of better players.

My example was extreme---no one's building a course where all the holes average 3.2---but there could still be enough variation between courses that you wouldn't want a tournament on multiple courses, with the results used head-to-head, as I believe Scarpfish was referring to.

I'm a fan of tough-par holes. Where the distribution might be 10% birdie, 50% par, 30% bogey, 10% worse. I wouldn't build a whole course of these, but put enough on a course and it'll make a difference.

My example was extreme---no one's building a course where all the holes average 3.2---but there could still be enough variation between courses that you wouldn't want a tournament on multiple courses, with the results used head-to-head, as I believe Scarpfish was referring to.

I'm a fan of tough-par holes. Where the distribution might be 10% birdie, 50% par, 30% bogey, 10% worse. I wouldn't build a whole course of these, but put enough on a course and it'll make a difference.

I like some holes like that, they separate out a different part of the field than the holes that play say 30% birdie, 50% par, 20% bogey and above. I like a mix of the tough and easier holes at any given par level throughout a course for that reason.